90 Years of Actors: my "alternate Oscars", 1923 - 2012

From Severin Mars, who died before this lineup even opens (my ballot's only posthumous award) to Ryan Gosling, born the same decade as me this list runs the gamut of acting eras and styles. I think of myself as someone who prefers a "naturalistic" style of performance, but scrolling through these characters I notice that many are over-the-top and larger-than-life. Clearly I enjoy an actor who's willing to chew scenery with gusto - but along with colorfulness, I appreciate intensity. There are quiet types below as well, but they tend to simmer beneath the surface. These actors skew younger than I expected and to my surprise I see that none are over sixty. I also left out some notable names (Jack Nicholson, in particular, is a grievous absence) while rewarding others numerous times but some of those absences can at least be found on the upcoming supporting list, a small consolation perhaps but a great performance is a great performance regardless of size.

Allan was the one who determined what counted as a lead vs. supporting performance, and I think in some cases he departed from the Academy's criterion. I followed suit. In addition to the actor's name, film's title, and accompanying image (I tried to find pictures isolating or at least focusing on the person in question), I also included the director(s) who worked with the performer, the name of the character portrayed, and the actor's lifespan so you can roughly glean their age at the time. Below the full lineup, I've listed another series of links
- these lead to other posts on this blog covering the films these actors appeared in.

Indeed, I find Gump to be a very overrated and fluffy film, but it still entertains and Hanks carries the film with his absent-minded charm...

Similar to your choice of Johnny Depp in Ed Wood, except I thought Hanks' was more an accomplishment in a challenge of a role that could've easily been deemed tasteless or campy if handled incorrectly. Depp's role seemed sincere from the start...

A similar reason for Hanks was why I chose Thornton for Sling Blade... as well as the fact that Childers is just such a fascinating and tragic character but in his tragedy is the only place where he finds complete solace.

Your choice of Sacha Baron Cohen interested me and I think I have to largely agree, though I have a soft spot for the bait-and-switch of Idi Amin where Whitaker portrays first as charming, friendly and generally pleasant then makes a monstrous shift to paranoid, egotistical and savage.

Bridges was chosen for True Grit for particularly living up to the name of the movie and Hesher is my favorite role by Joseph Gordon-Levitt yet (though the movie is more or less average... and it may just be the metalhead in me) - a role so powerful it immediately reminded Metallica of their late bassist Cliff Burton when they were screening the movie to consider granting them song royalties...

Bogart usually gets pegged as an icon before an actor, someone like John Wayne who carried the same persona from film to film. It's true that Bogart's look and voice were so distinctive that he's always "Bogie" to a certain extent in the viewer's mind; however, his characters often vary wildly - Dixon Steele is nothing like Sam Spade is nothing like Captain Queeg is nothing like Rick Blaine etc. They often have a wounded quality, a touch of paranoia, and a kind of sneering toughness, his trademarks, but fundamentally these characters are very different people, and even his physical appearance can seem to change from role to role. There's something just rawly sensitive about Steele, as if the hurt can't help but peek through. I realized voting for all these categories how much In a Lonely Place sticks out in my mind because it one quite a few of my "awards." It's been years since I've seen it (twice, I think) but the impression lingers and perhaps even grows.

Also interesting that most of your "repeat winners" have wins within five years of each other, with a few exceptions, which would imply that most great actors get on a "roll" of sorts where they are consistently knocking it out of the park, as opposed to a long career of great performances.

From everything I've heard, you're probably right though sadly I still haven't seen Richard III (I have a big chronological canon Netflic queue which is in the 1950s now so I should be reaching it soon). Certainly Henry, particularly after assuming the throne, is not necessarily one of Shakespeare's most compelling characters but Olivier being Olivier, he plays the part with gusto and of the competition I found his work most compelling (not sure of closest competition, maybe MacMurray for Double Indemnity?).

Definitely a brilliant work of direction. Lots of competition that year though - Maya Deren for At Land, Edward Dmytryk for the sublimely atmospheric Murder my Sweet, Otto Preminger for Laura, Sergei Eisenstein for Ivan the Terrible. Still, Olivier would top them all I think. Still, he was slightly edged out by a completely out-of-left-field choice, Gjon Mili for Jammin' the Blues, to me the most sublime use of music onscreen within a field of intense competition. What Mili does with camera, cutting, lighting, and timing of performance is nothing short of miraculous. But Olivier's work is great too (many would defer to him on scale alone, but I don't really tilt in that direction, at least most of the time - though there admittedly were occasions where those factors played strongly). Ultimately it's apples/oranges.

Re: 2nd point - that's true, and some have said the same of directors although increasingly I've come to see more creative longevity in director's careers than I used to. Favorability comes and goes, and styles shift, but I think talent remains (actors, more than directors, seem dependent on the whims of agents, producers, and audiences - not that directors don't receive weak material too but maybe it's easier for them to transcend it?).

"Actors, more than directors, seem dependent on the whims of agents, producers, and audiences - not that directors don't receive weak material too but maybe it's easier for them to transcend it?"

I'd agree with this.

I also want to say how pleased I am to see you give some kudos to Sacha Baron Cohen. I've been saying that performance was award-worthy for seven years, but no one will listen! Funny how cinephiles always complain about classic comedians like Chaplin or Keaton never getting properly rewarded for their films, but still ignore modern comedians. Oh well.

Excellent distinctions between Bogart the actor and Bogart the icon, Joel. I think its true that "In Lonely Place" is his most haunted role--there is no redemption for Dixon or Dobbs, showing how Bogart was a actor first and a star second.